The likelihood that people move varies

by race and Hispanic origin.1 Given

these differences, do the locations to and

from which they move also differ? In

other words, do geographic patterns of

migration differ by race and Hispanic origin? The redistribution of people by race

and Hispanic origin is largely a function

of domestic and international migration,

which strongly influence the population

growth and decline of particular racial

and ethnic groups in particular locations.

This report first examines and compares

general mobility patterns by race and

Hispanic origin — how many people

moved and what types of moves they

made, based on the Census 2000 question on residence in 1995. The second

part of the report discusses the redistribution of people by race and Hispanic origin between 1995 and 2000 by examining net migration at the regional,

division, and state levels and by considering movers from abroad. This provides an overview of geographic areas

that experienced the largest net migration gain (or loss) of people of various

race or Hispanic-origin groups, as well as

the geographic origins and destinations

of individual populations. Maps of

county-level net migration rates complement the regional-, divisional-, and statelevel analyses with a finer degree of geographic detail. This report helps answer

questions about what areas are gaining

U S C E N S U S B U R E A U

Helping You Make Informed Decisions

U.S.Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Issued October 2003

CENSR-13

Migration by Race and 

Hispanic Origin: 1995 to 2000

Census 2000 Special Reports

By 

Jason P. Schachter

1 For examples of moving rates by race and

Hispanic origin, see U.S. Census Bureau, 2001,

Geographical Mobility: March 1999 to March 2000,

by Jason Schachter, Current Population Reports 

P20-538, Washington, DC: Government Printing

Office.

2 Because Hispanics may be of any race, data in

this report for Hispanics overlap with data for racial

groups. Based on Census 2000 sample data, the

proportion Hispanic was 8.0 percent for Whites, 

1.9 percent for Blacks, 14.6 percent for American

Indians and Alaska Natives, 1.0 percent for Asians,

9.5 percent for Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific

Islanders, 97.1 percent for those reporting Some

other race, and 31.1 percent for those reporting Two

or more races.

Census 2000 allowed respondents

to choose more than one race.

With the exception of the Two or

more races group, all race groups

discussed in this report refer to

people who indicated only one

racial identity among the six major

categories: White, Black or African

American, American Indian and

Alaska Native, Asian, Native

Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander,

and Some other race. The use of

the single-race population in this

report does not imply that it is the

preferred method of presenting or

analyzing data. The Census Bureau

uses a variety of approaches.

This report also uses truncated race

and Hispanic origin names. People

who indicated they were “Black or

African American” (single race) are

simply referred to as “Blacks.”

People who marked the single race

“White” and reported that they were

not Hispanic are referred to as

“non-Hispanic Whites.” Hispanics

may be of any race.2 See Table 1

for the full list of race and Hispanicorigin names.
2 U.S. Census Bureau

or losing people of various races

or Hispanic origin, such as where

the growth of Hispanics is occurring and the nature of Black migration to the South.4

GEOGRAPHIC MOBILITY

The likelihood that a person

moved is related to personal characteristics. For example, people in

their twenties are much more likely

to move than people in their

fifties. The likelihood of moving

varies by race and Hispanic origin,

though some of this variation is

explained by age structure, housing tenure, and other characteristics.5 The following section briefly

looks at mobility rates by race and

Hispanic origin, as well as the

types of moves that were made. 

Hispanics and Blacks were

more mobile than nonHispanic Whites. 

As seen in Table 1, non-Hispanic

Whites were the least mobile

population, as only 43 percent

changed residence between 1995

and 2000. In contrast, 49 percent

of Blacks, 50 percent of American

Indian and Alaska Natives, 54 percent of Asians, and 56 percent of

Hispanics moved during this period. Native Hawaiians and Other

Pacific Islanders were found to be

as mobile as Hispanics, while

those in the Two-or-more race

group were slightly more mobile. 

Hispanics were more likely 

to have made intracounty

moves, while non-Hispanic

Whites were more likely to

have made interstate moves. 

Among people who moved, nonHispanic Whites (20.6 percent),

although less mobile than other

groups, were more likely to have

moved to a different state than

other racial or Hispanic-origin

groups. Hispanics (11.5 percent)

were the least likely to have made

an interstate move. Conversely,

Blacks (62.9 percent) and Hispanics

(57.2 percent) were more likely to

have made intracounty (short-distance) moves than non-Hispanic

Whites (53.1 percent). These differences to some extent reflect differences in characteristics like education, which is positively related

to the likelihood of moving longdistances.6

Among movers, Asians (26.4 percent) were most likely to have

moved to the United States, while

many Hispanics (17.3 percent) were

also likely to have moved from

abroad. Between 1995 and 2000,

non-Hispanic Whites (2.7 percent)

were least likely to have moved

from abroad. These findings are

consistent with high proportions of

immigrants coming from Asia and

Latin America in recent decades. 

INTERNAL MIGRATION AND

MOVERS FROM ABROAD

Although non-Hispanic Whites were

more likely to have moved

between states than other groups,

2.3 million Blacks, 2.0 million

Hispanics, and 830,000 Asians

moved to a different state between

1995 and 2000. Migration is a

major factor in explaining changing concentrations of people of different races and Hispanic origin in

the United States. The following

section examines migration patterns of the non-Hispanic White,

Black, Asian, and Hispanic populations. Data on migration by

detailed race and Hispanic-origin

categories (as seen in Table 1) are

available on the Internet at

www.census.gov/population/www

/cen2000/migration.html.

Common Migration Terms

Movers can be classified by

type of move and are categorized as to whether they

moved within the same county, to a different county within the same state, to a different county from a different

state or region, or were

movers from abroad.3

Migration is commonly

defined as moves that cross

jurisdictional boundaries

(counties in particular), while

moves within a jurisdiction

are referred to as residential

mobility. Moves between

counties are often referred to

as intercounty moves, while

moves within the same county are often termed intracounty moves. Further,

migration can be differentiated as movement within the

United States (domestic or

internal migration) and movement into and out of the

United States (international

migration). Census 2000 did

not measure the number of

people who moved to locations outside the United

States, hence net international migration cannot be

estimated. 

3 In this report, movers from abroad

include movers from foreign countries, as

well as movers from Puerto Rico, U.S. Island

Areas, and U.S. minor outlying islands. 4 Due to the relatively small number of

people in some race categories, discussion

of migration data for all race and Hispanic

origin groups is limited. Gross and net

migration data for regions and states for all

race groups are available on the Internet at

www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000

/migration.html. 6 Ibid.

5 For example, see U.S. Census Bureau,

2001, Geographical Mobility: March 1999 to

March 2000, by Jason Schachter, Current

Population Reports P20-538, Washington,

DC: Government Printing Office.

The estimates in this report are based on

responses from a sample of the population.

As with all surveys, estimates may vary from

the actual values because of sampling variation or other factors. All comparisons made

in this report have undergone statistical testing and are significant at the 90-percent confidence level unless otherwise noted.
U.S. Census Bureau 3

Table 1.

Type of Move by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1995 to 2000

(Data based on a sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see

www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)

Characteristic Total,

5 years

and over

Same

residence

(nonmovers)

Movers

Total

Same

county

Different

county,

same state

Different

state

From

abroad1

NUMBER

United States .................... 262,375,152 142,027,578 120,347,674 65,435,013 25,327,355 22,089,460 7,495,846

White alone .......................... 198,544,098 111,545,820 86,998,278 46,420,436 19,785,431 17,231,876 3,560,535

Black or African American alone ........ 31,616,957 16,223,625 15,393,332 9,679,483 2,669,686 2,329,209 714,954

American Indian and Alaska Native

alone............................... 2,243,344 1,132,387 1,110,957 594,838 279,239 196,252 40,628

Asian alone .......................... 9,520,205 4,374,003 5,146,202 2,136,373 824,565 828,709 1,356,555

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific

Islander alone ....................... 347,400 155,919 191,581 96,056 30,207 37,203 28,115

Some other race alone ................ 13,802,883 5,809,056 7,993,827 4,671,217 1,076,952 865,261 1,380,397

Two or more races .................... 6,300,265 2,786,768 3,513,497 1,836,610 661,275 600,950 414,662

Hispanic (of any race) ................. 31,569,576 14,047,118 17,522,458 10,030,447 2,453,817 2,010,719 3,027,475

White alone, not Hispanic or Latino ..... 183,342,983 104,404,231 78,938,752 41,908,074 18,648,378 16,287,499 2,094,801

PERCENT

United States .................... 100.0 54.1 45.9 24.9 9.7 8.4 2.9

White alone .......................... 100.0 56.2 43.8 23.4 10.0 8.7 1.8

Black or African American alone ........ 100.0 51.3 48.7 30.6 8.4 7.4 2.3

American Indian and Alaska Native

alone............................... 100.0 50.5 49.5 26.5 12.4 8.7 1.8

Asian alone .......................... 100.0 45.9 54.1 22.4 8.7 8.7 14.2

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific

Islander alone ....................... 100.0 44.9 55.1 27.6 8.7 10.7 8.1

Some other race alone ................ 100.0 42.1 57.9 33.8 7.8 6.3 10.0

Two or more races .................... 100.0 44.2 55.8 29.2 10.5 9.5 6.6

Hispanic (of any race) ................. 100.0 44.5 55.5 31.8 7.8 6.4 9.6

White alone, not Hispanic or Latino ..... 100.0 56.9 43.1 22.9 10.2 8.9 1.1

PERCENT OF MOVERS

United States .................... (NA) (NA) 100.0 54.4 21.0 18.4 6.2

White alone .......................... (NA) (NA) 100.0 53.4 22.7 19.8 4.1

Black or African American alone ........ (NA) (NA) 100.0 62.9 17.3 15.1 4.6

American Indian and Alaska Native

alone............................... (NA) (NA) 100.0 53.5 25.1 17.7 3.7

Asian alone .......................... (NA) (NA) 100.0 41.5 16.0 16.1 26.4

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific

Islander alone ....................... (NA) (NA) 100.0 50.1 15.8 19.4 14.7

Some other race alone ................ (NA) (NA) 100.0 58.4 13.5 10.8 17.3

Two or more races .................... (NA) (NA) 100.0 52.3 18.8 17.1 11.8

Hispanic (of any race) ................. (NA) (NA) 100.0 57.2 14.0 11.5 17.3

White alone, not Hispanic or Latino ..... (NA) (NA) 100.0 53.1 23.6 20.6 2.7

NA Not applicable.

1

This category includes movers from foreign countries, as well as movers from Puerto Rico, U.S. Island Areas, and U.S. minor outlying islands.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
4 U.S. Census Bureau

REGIONAL AND 

DIVISIONAL MIGRATION

The South experienced 

net inmigration of Blacks; 

the West had net outmigration

of Hispanics to other 

U.S. regions.

Between 1995 and 2000, more

Blacks moved to the South from

other parts of the United States

than left the South. Black migrants

to the South totaled 680,000, and

Blacks leaving the region numbered

334,000. These figures mean that

for every Black person who left the

South, two moved in (see Table 2A).

During this same period, the West,

Northeast, and Midwest experienced net outmigration of Blacks. 

More Hispanics left the West to go

to other parts of the United States

than moved to the West from elsewhere in the United States between

1995 and 2000. In this 5-year

period, 396,000 Hispanics moved

from the West to other parts of the

United States, and 235,000

Hispanics moved to the West from

elsewhere in the United States (see

Table 2B). The Northeast also

experienced net outmigration of

Hispanics during 1995-2000. The

South and Midwest recorded net

inmigration of Hispanics. 

Internal migration redistributed

Asians from the Northeast and

Midwest to the South. Between

1995 and 2000, Asians moving to

the South numbered 165,000 and

those leaving for other parts of the

United States totaled 120,000.

The West had similar numbers of

Asians moving to and from the

region. The Northeast and

Midwest experienced net outmigration of Asians during this period. 

As non-Hispanic Whites comprise

over two-thirds (69.9 percent) of

the total population aged 5 years

and over, interregional migration

patterns of this group generally

reflected patterns of the overall

population.7

Movers from abroad helped

offset net domestic migration

loss in many areas.

In terms of population distribution,

movers from abroad can have a

tremendous impact on an area’s

racial or ethnic make-up, particularly for Asians and Hispanics, who

make up the majority of movers

from abroad. Given the nature of

census migration data, however, it

is often difficult to distinguish

between movers from abroad and

secondary migration of immigrants. A mover from abroad may

move to one location in the United

States, then move once or even

several times more during the

same 5-year period. For example,

a Hispanic person living in Georgia

in 2000 who reported living

abroad in 1995 could have moved

to Georgia in 1999 after initially

moving to California in 1996.

Instead of being counted as a

California-to-Georgia domestic

migrant, this person would be

characterized as having come to

Georgia from abroad.

Movers from abroad strongly

affected the Northeast. About

488,000 non-Hispanic Whites,

474,000 Hispanics, 336,000

Asians, and 200,000 Blacks moved

there from abroad, offsetting the

region’s domestic net migration

loss. Other regions were also

affected, as over 1.2 million

Hispanics moved to the South, 

1.0 million Hispanics moved to the

West, and 316,000 Hispanics

moved to the Midwest from

outside the United States. It is

important to keep migration from

abroad in mind when interpreting

the domestic migration numbers

described in this report. 

The South experienced the

largest net migration gain of

non-Hispanic Whites, Blacks,

Asians, and Hispanics. 

Among the four regions, the South

had the highest level of net domestic migration gain (and net migration rates) for non-Hispanic Whites,

Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics (see

Tables 2A and 2B). Between 1995

and 2000, approximately 1.1 million more non-Hispanic Whites

moved into the South than moved

away. The South also experienced

positive net migration of 347,000

Blacks, 256,000 Hispanics, and

45,000 Asians. Much of this net

migration gain was concentrated in

the South Atlantic division, in

terms of numbers for non-Hispanic

Whites (870,000), Blacks

(299,000), Hispanics (210,000),

and Asians (40,000), and in term

of rates for non-Hispanic Whites

(27.7), Blacks (31.2), and Asians

(49.5).8 The East South Central

division actually had the highest

net migration rate (149.8) for

Hispanics in the South, but this can

be explained partly by the relatively small number of Hispanics in

that area in 1995. This net migration rate indicates that the East

South Central division gained 150

Hispanics for every 1,000

Hispanics living there in 1995. 

7 For example, see U.S. Census Bureau,

2003, Domestic Migration Across Regions,

Divisions, and States, 1995 to 2000, by

Rachel S. Franklin, Census 2000 Special

Reports, CENSR-7, Washington, DC:

Government Printing Office. 

8 The net migration rate in this report is

based on an approximated 1995 population,

which is the sum of the respective race or

Hispanic origin population in 2000 who

reported living in the area in both 1995 and

2000, and those who reported living in that

area in 1995 but lived elsewhere in 2000.

The net migration rate divides net migration,

which is inmigration minus outmigration, by

the approximated 1995 population and multiplies the result by 1,000.
U.S. Census Bureau 5

Table 2A.

Migration for Regions, Divisions, and States for Non-Hispanic Whites and Blacks:

1995 to 2000

(Data based on a sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see

www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)

Area

Non-Hispanic White Black

Domestic migration

From abroad3

Domestic migration

From abroad3 Inmigrants1 Outmigrants1 Net Rate2 Inmigrants1 Outmigrants1 Net Rate2

Northeast ....... 1,164,467 1,996,103 -831,636 –22.2 487,975 136,780 369,665 -232,885 –41.6 199,584

New England ........ 607,579 690,655 -83,076 –7.6 149,374 43,251 58,064 -14,813 –23.5 33,934

Maine ............. 100,442 96,109 4,333 3.8 7,768 1,379 2,240 –861 –153.6 715

New Hampshire....... 149,481 122,870 26,611 24.9 9,682 2,307 3,003 –696 –84.7 721

Vermont ............ 65,339 61,701 3,638 6.7 5,693 875 1,894 -1,019 –290.1 200

Massachusetts ....... 350,626 405,836 -55,210 –11.3 81,980 21,519 28,057 -6,538 –21.9 18,670

Rhode Island ........ 75,223 76,166 –943 –1.2 7,508 5,281 5,170 111 2.9 2,908

Connecticut ......... 196,980 258,485 -61,505 –24.5 36,743 20,296 26,106 -5,810 –21.1 10,720

Middle Atlantic....... 924,746 1,673,306 -748,560 –28.2 338,601 125,263 343,335 -218,072 –43.9 165,650

New York . . . . . . . . . . . 512,230 999,636 -487,406 –42.8 199,610 79,965 245,331 -165,366 –58.8 111,712

New Jersey ......... 344,265 482,687 -138,422 –26.1 73,438 64,552 99,234 -34,682 –33.2 31,739

Pennsylvania ........ 521,013 643,745 -122,732 –12.5 65,553 62,265 80,289 -18,024 –16.2 22,199

Midwest ........ 1,814,349 2,336,977 -522,628 –10.6 388,827 212,076 276,090 -64,014 –10.9 100,010

East North Central .... 1,384,189 1,833,164 -448,975 –13.3 278,147 174,183 242,300 -68,117 –13.9 67,431

Ohio .............. 475,779 591,436 -115,657 –12.8 52,484 59,909 62,222 -2,313 –2.0 15,877

Indiana ............ 356,039 358,679 -2,640 –0.5 26,643 42,957 36,765 6,192 13.8 6,377

Illinois ............. 486,177 731,656 -245,479 –30.4 105,409 72,810 128,048 -55,238 –31.8 25,185

Michigan ........... 353,252 438,455 -85,203 –11.6 70,101 49,237 65,686 -16,449 –12.8 15,474

Wisconsin........... 276,636 276,632 4 – 23,510 22,096 22,405 –309 –1.2 4,518

West North Central.... 912,944 986,597 -73,653 –4.7 110,680 86,954 82,851 4,103 4.3 32,579

Minnesota .......... 274,634 279,555 -4,921 –1.2 27,845 25,164 16,046 9,118 71.9 14,992

Iowa .............. 182,010 217,529 -35,519 –13.8 16,762 8,207 8,806 –599 –11.5 2,483

Missouri ............ 384,426 351,036 33,390 7.7 31,556 42,217 39,883 2,334 4.2 8,612

North Dakota ........ 53,085 75,427 -22,342 –38.9 4,849 1,328 2,054 –726 –200.9 411

South Dakota ........ 61,286 74,092 -12,806 –20.2 4,258 1,326 1,880 –554 –142.6 683

Nebraska ........... 120,850 142,237 -21,387 –15.1 8,997 8,168 8,582 –414 –6.9 1,967

Kansas ............ 214,200 224,268 -10,068 –4.8 16,413 19,830 24,886 -5,056 –36.3 3,431

South .......... 3,529,784 2,402,821 1,126,963 18.7 676,428 680,131 333,585 346,546 20.8 340,028

South Atlantic ....... 2,818,286 1,948,455 869,831 27.7 426,507 590,691 291,986 298,705 31.2 242,419

Delaware ........... 71,228 65,533 5,695 10.8 5,102 19,633 10,559 9,074 73.0 3,626

Maryland ........... 292,340 361,289 -68,949 –22.1 43,296 138,544 94,995 43,549 34.1 36,276

District of Columbia .... 60,242 63,501 -3,259 –22.2 10,212 38,572 72,690 -34,118 –98.3 7,939

Virginia ............ 577,572 555,565 22,007 4.8 71,739 140,733 111,584 29,149 23.8 29,822

West Virginia ........ 124,545 134,537 -9,992 –6.2 4,912 7,461 7,069 392 7.6 610

North Carolina........ 661,619 434,635 226,984 45.0 49,966 142,875 89,504 53,371 35.0 25,027

South Carolina ....... 329,537 225,854 103,683 43.7 20,372 77,555 61,302 16,253 15.2 10,213

Georgia ............ 586,179 442,736 143,443 31.1 56,570 252,237 122,488 129,749 65.7 43,659

Florida ............. 1,403,907 953,688 450,219 48.2 164,338 168,862 117,576 51,286 25.9 85,247

East South Central .... 931,704 750,153 181,551 15.2 76,154 180510 154,398 26,112 8.5 32,102

Kentucky ........... 264,445 237,402 27,043 8.1 20,178 29,599 26,985 2,614 10.0 5,365

Tennessee .......... 451,808 340,956 110,852 27.0 27,470 68,995 49,652 19,343 23.5 9,795

Alabama ........... 237,585 221,246 16,339 5.6 18,593 63,630 56,784 6,846 6.6 10,529

Mississippi .......... 159,417 132,100 27,317 17.2 9,913 51,415 54,106 -2,691 –2.9 6,413

West South Central . . . 1,170,114 1,094,533 75,581 4.4 173,767 199,246 177,517 21,729 5.4 65,507

Arkansas ........... 197,119 163,911 33,208 17.2 11,242 25,593 27,785 -2,192 –5.8 3,695

Louisiana ........... 168,513 220,305 -51,792 –19.5 16,323 58,075 76,149 -18,074 –13.6 9,682

Oklahoma .......... 237,165 229,659 7,506 3.1 17,167 27,729 28,046 –317 –1.4 4,887

Texas ............. 890,170 803,511 86,659 8.6 129,035 156,403 114,091 42,312 20.1 47,243

West . . . . . . . . . . . 2,027,550 1,800,249 227,301 6.7 541,571 171,309 220,956 -49,647 –18.0 75,332

Mountain........... 1,652,381 1,161,580 490,801 42.9 155,042 88,890 66,090 22,800 53.8 18,316

Montana ........... 101,168 104,308 -3,140 –4.1 4,951 754 1,189 –435 –178.9 148

Idaho.............. 161,653 128,553 33,100 32.5 9,743 1,292 1,943 –651 –139.2 599

Wyoming ........... 64,650 74,374 -9,724 –23.2 3,406 979 2,004 -1,025 –270.5 190

New Mexico ......... 133,401 154,397 -20,996 –26.8 11,817 6,068 8,792 -2,724 –84.9 1,278

Arizona ............ 610,112 369,507 240,605 85.5 43,286 28,071 19,162 8,909 69.7 5,388

Colorado ........... 503,409 388,356 115,053 40.2 42,990 24,767 25,984 -1,217 –8.6 5,877

Utah .............. 195,985 185,542 10,443 6.1 23,249 3,641 3,144 497 39.3 1,286

Nevada ............ 303,920 178,460 125,460 115.2 15,600 31,356 11,910 19,446 197.2 3,550

Pacific ............ 1,384,359 1,647,859 -263,500 –11.7 386,529 127,671 200,118 -72,447 –31.1 57,016

Washington ......... 469,316 426,963 42,353 9.9 73,182 29,843 28,981 862 5.3 7,838

Oregon ............ 324,659 271,011 53,648 20.5 27,904 7,551 7,405 146 3.2 2,131

California ........... 1,003,615 1,302,897 -299,282 –19.9 269,407 98,713 161,893 -63,180 –30.4 44,243

Alaska ............. 71,792 98,569 -26,777 –64.1 6,068 5,999 9,071 -3,072 –140.1 1,164

Hawaii ............. 76,455 109,897 -33,442 –116.3 9,968 10,576 17,779 -7,203 –293.1 1,640

– Represents zero or rounds to zero.

1Values for in- and outmigrants for regions, divisions, and states were calculated independently. Thus, within a region, numbers for states do not sum to the number for each division,

which in turn do not sum to the number for the region. 2

The net migration rate in this report is based on an approximated 1995 population, which is the sum of the respective race or Hispanic origin population in 2000 who reported living

in the area in both 1995 and 2000, and those who reported living in that area in 1995 but lived elsewhere in 2000. The net migration rate divides net migration, which is inmigration minus

outmigration, by the approximated 1995 population and multiplies the result by 1,000. 3This category includes movers from foreign countries, as well as movers from Puerto Rico, U.S. Island Areas, and U.S. minor outlying islands.

Note: A negative value for net migration or the net migration rate is indicative of net outmigration, meaning that more migrants left an area than entered it. Positive numbers reflect net inmigration to an area.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
6 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 2B.

Migration for Regions, Divisions, and States for Asians and Hispanics: 1995 to 2000

(Data based on a sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see

www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)

Area

Asian Hispanic

Domestic migration

From abroad3

Domestic migration

From abroad3 Inmigrants1 Outmigrants1 Net Rate2 Inmigrants1 Outmigrants1 Net Rate2

Northeast ....... 92,601 131,108 -38,507 –23.0 335,649 105,187 256,229 -151,042 –34.0 473,590

New England ........ 45,528 40,041 5,487 19.9 63,683 64,582 53,491 11,091 16.5 98,989

Maine ............. 1,308 1,579 –271 –41.0 1,204 2,378 2,200 178 23.1 352

New Hampshire....... 3,293 3,087 206 19.2 3,260 4,538 3,175 1,363 96.0 2,082

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . 675 1,323 –648 –162.2 982 ,410 1,442 –32 –6.9 277

Massachusetts ....... 31,219 25,204 6,015 34.4 40,238 32,817 30,557 2,260 6.8 48,767

Rhode Island ........ 3,745 3,628 117 6.0 2,531 10,293 6,513 3,780 58.1 11,525

Connecticut ......... 12,942 12,874 68 1.1 15,468 25,505 21,963 3,542 14.3 35,986

Middle Atlantic....... 76,447 120,441 -43,994 –31.5 271,966 91,865 253,998 -162,133 –43.0 374,601

New York . . . . . . . . . . . 49,754 100,280 -50,526 –57.8 156,671 67,273 225,429 -158,156 –62.0 223,033

New Jersey ......... 51,380 43,877 7,503 20.9 78,315 64,410 79,132 -14,722 –16.0 116,588

Pennsylvania ........ 28,548 29,519 –971 –5.9 36,980 44,410 33,665 10,745 35.4 34,980

Midwest ........ 90,841 100,558 -9,717 –10.9 205,237 220,502 164,169 56,333 23.9 316,424

East North Central .... 70,558 80,011 -9,453 –14.3 155,839 136,862 126,736 10,126 5.3 240,659

Ohio .............. 16,081 19,450 -3,369 –34.6 28,379 24,158 19,045 5,113 30.6 17,165

Indiana ............ 10,199 10,744 –545 –13.6 13,547 32,050 15,228 16,822 118.7 26,304

Illinois ............. 34,594 39,612 -5,018 –15.0 66,159 58,804 88,724 -29,920 –24.2 146,253

Michigan ........... 18,848 18,788 60 0.5 36,534 33,305 22,944 10,361 42.1 27,600

Wisconsin........... 10,685 11,266 –581 –9.0 11,220 20,609 12,859 7,750 57.1 23,337

West North Central.... 36,905 37,169 –264 –1.1 49,398 100,677 54,470 46,207 106.7 75,765

Minnesota .......... 17,443 10,188 7,255 71.3 16,677 26,137 11,405 14,732 165.6 19,424

Iowa .............. 4,570 7,074 -2,504 –89.0 6,619 15,417 9,333 6,084 112.7 10,068

Missouri ............ 9,618 10,990 -1,372 –29.5 10,775 23,362 14,474 8,888 109.4 12,569

North Dakota . . . . . . . . 529 1,502 –973 –300.1 879 1,921 2,254 –333 –50.2 389

South Dakota . . . . . . . . 892 1,195 –303 –83.4 913 2,869 2,009 860 112.3 529

Nebraska ........... 3,053 3,756 –703 –46.0 4,942 17,149 10,102 7,047 112.1 11,301

Kansas ............ 6,237 7,901 -1,664 –48.4 8,593 26,333 17,404 8,929 67.9 21,485

South .......... 165,229 120,051 45,178 31.9 303,806 548,330 292,235 256,095 28.7 1,215,592

South Atlantic ....... 120,849 80,997 39,852 49.5 172,204 387,918 177,490 210,428 70.5 668,943

Delaware ........... 3,169 3,007 162 14.3 3,367 5,514 3,323 2,191 84.4 4,801

Maryland ........... 23,927 23,929 –2 – 31,674 29,000 22,436 6,564 39.2 30,178

District of Columbia .... 4,517 5,981 -1,464 –122.7 3,592 6,870 12,071 -5,201 –133.3 7,239

Virginia ............ 31,240 24,423 6,817 35.7 41,995 51,761 36,818 14,943 65.7 51,284

West Virginia ........ 1,745 2,541 –796 –102.7 1,874 2,368 2,386 –18 –1.8 577

North Carolina........ 24,797 13,236 11,561 159.3 18,364 71,268 30,197 41,071 218.3 99,018

South Carolina ....... 7,382 6,218 1,164 43.3 5,965 21,108 10,323 10,785 212.2 21,418

Georgia ............ 29,085 14,769 14,316 123.8 29,731 78,567 30,954 47,613 208.9 105,951

Florida ............. 34,707 26,613 8,094 39.6 35,642 221,534 129,054 92,480 45.2 348,477

East South Central .... 20,439 23,855 -3,416 –34.5 25,659 57,584 31,832 25,752 149.8 56,567

Kentucky ........... 5,108 5,576 –468 –23.5 7,339 12,288 8,609 3,679 105.5 11,234

Tennessee .......... 9,219 9,046 173 4.4 10,282 26,447 12,395 14,052 217.0 26,969

Alabama ........... 4,525 6,938 -2,413 –98.9 5,715 14,039 8,254 5,785 124.8 12,281

Mississippi .......... 3,460 4,168 –708 –47.4 2,323 7,857 5,621 2,236 86.2 6,083

West South Central . . . 62,018 53,276 8,742 17.0 105,943 251,002 231,087 19,915 3.4 490,082

Arkansas ........... 2,831 3,430 –599 –40.2 3,459 18,924 8,170 10,754 216.2 14,143

Louisiana ........... 6,601 9,898 -3,297 –68.5 6,602 14,094 14,804 –710 –7.7 7,693

Oklahoma .......... 5,281 8,005 -2,724 –75.2 9,161 27,106 17,504 9,602 77.1 20,795

Texas ............. 56,139 40,777 15,362 37.1 86,721 224,082 223,813 269 – 447,451

West . . . . . . . . . . . 142,245 139,199 3,046 0.7 511,863 234,508 395,894 -161,386 –12.6 1,021,869

Mountain........... 61,706 36,187 25,519 103.3 52,005 313,572 148,723 164,849 61.0 283,047

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . 655 1,240 –585 –147.2 721 3,411 3,734 –323 –20.0 444

Idaho.............. 1,706 2,072 –366 –40.2 1,917 11,808 11,620 188 2.3 7,758

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . 526 984 –458 –158.9 384 3,965 5,247 -1,282 –45.8 1,087

New Mexico ......... 3,376 4,671 -1,295 –82.6 2,430 48,173 52,702 -4,529 –6.7 21,210

Arizona ............ 16,297 10,578 5,719 89.1 15,138 113,081 57,611 55,470 56.9 113,527

Colorado ........... 15,210 9,917 5,293 78.9 14,255 80,517 40,791 39,726 72.3 66,483

Utah .............. 4,627 5,408 –781 –27.5 6,500 27,947 13,998 13,949 107.4 29,780

Nevada ............ 23,868 5,876 17,992 323.1 10,660 87,917 26,267 61,650 255.3 42,758

Pacific ............ 134,617 157,090 -22,473 –5.7 459,858 178,065 504,300 -326,235 –32.3 738,822

Washington ......... 34,463 22,015 12,448 50.3 41,355 52,759 40,307 12,452 37.8 40,347

Oregon ............ 12,916 9,483 3,433 46.3 14,467 35,819 22,250 13,569 71.7 34,399

California ........... 127,384 151,864 -24,480 –7.9 377,408 160,374 505,947 -345,573 –36.5 660,076

Alaska ............. 4,685 3,593 1,092 54.7 2,782 5,794 6,754 –960 –43.9 1,546

Hawaii ............. 13,650 28,616 -14,966 –31.5 23,846 11,179 16,902 -5,723 –71.4 2,454

– Represents zero or rounds to zero.

1Values for in- and outmigrants for regions, divisions, and states were calculated independently. Thus, within a region, numbers for states do not sum to the number for each division,

which in turn do not sum to the number for the region. 2

The net migration rate in this report is based on an approximated 1995 population, which is the sum of the respective race or Hispanic origin population in 2000 who reported living

in the area in both 1995 and 2000, and those who reported living in that area in 1995 but lived elsewhere in 2000. The net migration rate divides net migration, which is inmigration minus

outmigration, by the approximated 1995 population and multiplies the result by 1,000. 3This category includes movers from foreign countries, as well as movers from Puerto Rico, U.S. Island Areas, and U.S. minor outlying islands.

Note: A negative value for net migration or the net migration rate is indicative of net outmigration, meaning that more migrants left an area than entered it. Positive numbers reflect net

inmigration to an area.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
U.S. Census Bureau 7

Figure 1.

Blacks Who Moved To the South, Moved From the South, or Lived in the South in 

1995 and 2000, by Sex, Age, and Education

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. 

(Data based on a sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, 

nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf) South outmigrants

South inmigrants

All other southern Blacks

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

College

graduate

Some

college

High

school

only

Less than

high

school

65

years

and over

45 to 64

years

25 to 44

years

15 to 24

years

5 to 14

years

Male Female

Percent

According to Census 2000, more than half of the U.S.

national Black population 5 years and over lived in

the South. Contributing to this number was the net

domestic inmigration of over 300,000 Blacks to the

South between 1995 and 2000. What were the characteristics of these Black migrants? For one thing,

Black inmigrants to the South had more education

than southern Blacks who did not leave the region

between 1995 and 2000. However, while 97,000

Blacks with college degrees moved to the South from

other regions, 60,000 college educated Blacks moved

away. So, while the South did gain many Blacks with

higher educational attainment, they also gained many

more with lower educational attainment. For

instance, 137,000 Black migrants to the South had

only a high school education, but only 66,000 outmigrants had this level of education. 

Figure 1 shows the percentage age, sex, and education distribution of Blacks who migrated to the

South, those who migrated away from the South,

and those who did not leave the South between

1995 and 2000. In terms of percentages, Blacks

who left the South were more likely to be college

educated, male, and 25-44 years of age than those

who moved into the South. Still, Black migrants to

the South were more likely to be younger and more

highly educated than Black noninterregional

migrants. That Black inmigrants to the South tended to be older than Blacks who left the South could

suggest some degree of return migration, with

Blacks who left the South at younger ages now

returning at older ages. 

What were the characteristics of Blacks who moved to the South?
The Northeast experienced 

a net migration loss of 

non-Hispanic Whites, Blacks,

Asians, and Hispanics. 

The Northeast experienced net

domestic migration loss of all four

race/Hispanic-origin groups and

had the highest net outmigration

rates of all four regions (22.2 for

non-Hispanic Whites, 41.6 for

Blacks, 23.0 for Asians, and 34.0

for Hispanics).9 This means, in the

case of non-Hispanic Whites, that

the Northeast lost about 22 nonHispanic Whites through migration

for every 1,000 living in the region

in 1995. In numerical terms,

between 1995 and 2000, the

Northeast had a net migration loss

(from domestic sources) of 832,000

non-Hispanic Whites, 233,000

Blacks, 151,000 Hispanics, and

39,000 Asians. The majority of net

outmigration from the Northeast

left the Middle Atlantic division

rather than New England. In fact,

New England had positive net

migration gain (from domestic

sources) of both Hispanics (11,000)

and Asians (5,000). It should also

be noted that the net domestic

migration loss of Hispanics

(162,000) and Asians (44,000) from

the Middle Atlantic division was offset by the arrival of Hispanics

(375,000 — many from Puerto Rico)

and Asians (272,000) from abroad. 

The Midwest experienced a net

migration gain of Hispanics,

but had a net migration loss

for all other groups. 

The Midwest experienced a net

domestic migration loss of nonHispanic Whites (523,000), Blacks

(64,000), and Asians (10,000),

though these losses were smaller

than those in the Northeast.

However, the Midwest did have a

positive net migration of Hispanics

(56,000), which offset a small portion of the net migration loss of the

other three groups. The Hispanic

net migration rate in the Midwest

was 23.9, meaning that the

Midwest gained about 24 Hispanics

through migration for every 1,000

Hispanics living there in 1995.

The loss of non-Hispanic Whites,

Asians, and Blacks was much

greater in the East North Central

division than in the West North

Central division (see Tables 2A and

2B). Similarly, the West North

Central division had a net migration

gain of over 46,000 Hispanics,

while the East North Central division’s net gain of Hispanics was

only 10,000. The West North

Central division also had a net

migration gain of 4,000 Blacks. It is

important to remember that the

Midwest gained over 300,000

Hispanics from abroad during this

same period, some of whom might

have been domestic inmigrants who

moved to the Midwest after initially

arriving at some other region in the

United States. The majority of

these Hispanic movers from abroad

went to the East North Central

Division (particularly Illinois). 

The West’s net migration 

gain was concentrated in the

Mountain division. 

The West experienced a net

domestic migration gain of

227,000 non-Hispanic Whites, but

had a net migration loss of 50,000

Blacks and 161,000 Hispanics.

The region’s net migration rate was

highest for non-Hispanic Whites

(6.7) and lowest for Blacks (-18.0).

Net migration gain in the West was

concentrated in the Mountain division. In fact, the Mountain division

had positive net migration of nonHispanic Whites, Asians, Blacks,

and Hispanics, while the Pacific

division had negative net migration

for all four groups. Again, most of

the net domestic outmigration of

Asians and Hispanics from the

Pacific division was more than offset by movers from abroad. While

the Pacific division had a net

domestic migration loss of 22,000

Asians and 326,000 Hispanics, it

gained 460,000 Asians and

739,000 Hispanics from abroad. 

STATE-TO-STATE

MIGRATION

The above analysis for regions and

divisions can be extended to

states. Among states, Florida had

the largest net domestic migration

gain of non-Hispanic Whites and

Hispanics; Georgia had the highest

net migration gain of Blacks; and

Nevada, Texas, and Georgia had

high net migration gains of Asians.

In terms of net migration rates,

Nevada had high rates for each of

these groups.

Florida had the largest 

net migration gain of 

non-Hispanic Whites. 

Florida experienced the largest net

migration gain (450,000) of nonHispanic Whites from other states,

followed by Arizona and North

Carolina. Nevada had the highest

net migration rate for non-Hispanic

Whites at 115.2, followed by

Arizona (85.5). Finally, California

(269,000) had the largest number

of non-Hispanic White movers from

abroad, followed by New York

(200,000). 

Georgia had the largest net

migration gain of Blacks.

Black domestic migration patterns

were somewhat different from

those of non-Hispanic Whites, as

the state with the largest net

migration gain of Blacks was

Georgia (130,000), followed by

North Carolina (53,000), Florida

(51,000), Maryland (44,000), and

Texas (42,000).10 In terms of net

8 U.S. Census Bureau

9 The estimated difference between nonHispanic Whites and Asians was not statistically significant.

10 The estimates for North Carolina and

Florida were not statistically different. 
migration rates, Nevada had the

highest net migration rate of

Blacks at 197.2, while Delaware,

Minnesota, Arizona, and Georgia

also had high rates. New York

(112,000) and Florida (85,000) had

the largest number of Black

movers from abroad, perhaps due

to Caribbean and African immigrant destination choices. 

Nevada had a large net

migration gain of Asians.

Nevada (18,000), Texas (15,000),

and Georgia (14,000) recorded

large net migration gains of

Asians.11 In terms of rates, Nevada

had by far the highest net migration rate for Asians at 323.1, followed by North Carolina (159.3)

and Georgia (123.8).12 California

(377,000) and New York (157,000)

were the top destination states of

Asian movers from abroad. 

U.S. Census Bureau 9

As described earlier, both the South and the Midwest

saw large increases in their Hispanic populations due

to migration (both internal and international). While

the South also experienced net migration gains of

non-Hispanic Whites, Blacks, and Asians, the Midwest

differed in that it had a net migration gain only of

Hispanics. Did Hispanics moving to the Midwest differ from those living in the rest of the United States?

Table 3 details the age, sex, nativity, and more

detailed origin of Hispanic migrants who moved to

and away from the Midwest, as well as the total U.S.

Hispanic population 5 years and over. 

Hispanic migrants to and from the Midwest were

more likely to be male than the overall Hispanic

population, as were Hispanics who moved from

abroad. Among domestic Hispanic migrants, those

who moved to the Midwest were more likely to be

male than those who left the Midwest. In contrast,

Hispanic migrants from the Midwest were somewhat

older than Hispanic migrants to the Midwest.

Hispanic outmigrants from the Midwest were more

likely to be natives than domestic inmigrants, while

these domestic inmigrants to the Midwest were as

likely as the overall Hispanic population to be foreign born. Finally, both Hispanic movers from

abroad and domestic migrants to the Midwest were

more likely to be of Mexican origin than the overall

U.S. Hispanic population. To summarize, Hispanics

moving to the Midwest differed somewhat from the

overall Hispanic population, being younger and

more likely to be male and of Mexican descent, but

these differences were not great. 

11 The estimates for Nevada, Texas, and

Georgia were not statistically different. 12 The estimates for North Carolina and

Georgia, and for Georgia and Arizona were

not statistically different.

Table 3.

Characteristics of Hispanic Migrants To and From the

Midwest: 1995 to 2000

(Data based on a sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling

error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)

Characteristic

U.S.

Hispanics,

aged 5

and over

Midwest

inmigrants

Midwest

outmigrants

From

abroad to

Midwest1

Total . . . ....................... 31,569,576 220,502 164,169 316,424

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION

Sex

Male . . . ........................... 51.3 55.9 54.1 58.7

Female ............................ 48.8 44.1 45.9 41.3

Age

5 to 14 years....................... 21.6 22.4 20.6 14.2

15 to 24 years . . . . . ................ 20.5 23.5 22.0 38.1

25 to 44 years . . . . . ................ 37.2 44.9 43.5 39.6

45 to 64 years . . . . . ................ 15.2 8.2 10.7 6.9

65 years and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 1.1 3.2 1.4

Nativity

Native ............................. 55.8 54.7 65.9 12.6

Foreign born ....................... 44.2 45.3 34.1 87.4

Hispanic or Latino Origin

Mexican ........................... 58.6 66.5 59.2 76.9

Central American . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 5.6 3.6 4.8

South American . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 2.9 4.6 5.0

Puerto Rican . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.8 7.6 12.4 5.8

Cuban. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8 2.0 3.3 0.9

Dominican . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 1.0 0.8 0.5

Other . . ........................... 15.9 14.4 16.1 6.2

1

This category includes movers from foreign countries, as well as movers from Puerto Rico, U.S.

Island Areas, and U.S. minor outlying islands.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.

Characteristics of Hispanics moving to and away from the Midwest.
Florida had the largest 

net domestic migration gain

of Hispanics.

The states with the largest net

domestic migration gains of

Hispanics were similar to those for

the race groups. Florida had the

highest net migration gain of

Hispanics (92,000), followed by

Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia.

High net migration rates (about

200 or more) of Hispanics were

found in Nevada, North Carolina,

Tennessee, Arkansas, South

Carolina, and Georgia. While rates

were not as high as in the southern states listed above, Hispanic

net migration rates were also high

(about 100 or more) in the midwestern states of Minnesota,

Indiana, Nebraska, South Dakota,

Iowa, and Missouri, suggesting

rapid growth in those areas as well

(see previous text box). It should

be kept in mind that migration

rates are often influenced by low

population totals (in this case

Hispanics) in those areas in 1995,

as rates are particularly sensitive

to low population bases. 

The top six states in terms of the

number of Hispanic movers from

abroad mirrored the six immigration gateway states.13 California

was first with 660,000, followed

by Texas (447,000), Florida

(348,000), New York (223,000),

Illinois (146,000), and New Jersey

(117,000).14

New York and California 

had the highest net migration

loss of all four race/Hispanic

origin groups.

New York, California, and Illinois

were the largest exporters of

migrants among all four

race/Hispanic origin groups. New

York had the largest net migration

loss of non-Hispanic Whites

(487,000), Blacks (165,000), and

Asians (51,000), and also had the

second-largest loss of Hispanics

(158,000).15 California had the

largest net migration loss of

Hispanics (346,000), and the second-largest loss of non-Hispanic

Whites (299,000) and Asians

(24,000). Illinois had the thirdlargest loss of non-Hispanic Whites

(245,000) and Hispanics (30,000).

California (63,000) and Illinois

(55,000) also had high net outmigration of Blacks.16 As described

earlier, much of this outmigration

was moderated by large numbers of

movers from abroad to these states. 

Net outmigration rates varied

by race and Hispanic origin.

Hawaii (116.3) had the highest net

outmigration rate for non-Hispanic

Whites, followed by Alaska (64.1)

and New York (42.8).17 Some of the

highest net outmigration rates of

Blacks were found in Hawaii

(293.1), Vermont (290.1), and

Wyoming (270.5).18 North Dakota,

Vermont, and Wyoming had high

net outmigration rates of Asians.

One of the highest Hispanic net outmigration rates was experienced by

the District of Columbia (133.3),

while Hawaii and New York also had

high rates. The rates for Blacks and

Asians probably reflect low Black

and Asian 1995 population totals,

as rates are sensitive to low population bases. 

STATE-TO-STATE

MIGRATION FLOWS

Where did migrants to the top

gaining states originate? What

were the destinations of migrants

from the top losing states? Stateto-state migration flows illustrate

the geographic origin of the gain

10 U.S. Census Bureau

13 For more discussion on “immigrant

gateway states” and their effect on domestic

migration patterns, see U.S. Census Bureau,

2003, Migration of Natives and the Foreign

Born: 1995 to 2000, by Marc J. Perry and

Jason P. Schachter, Census 2000 Special

Reports, CENSR-11, Washington, DC:

Government Printing Office. 14 The estimates for New Jersey and

Arizona were not statistically different. 

15 The estimates for Blacks and Hispanics

were not statistically different. 16 The estimates for California and Illinois

were not statistically different. 17 The estimates for New York, North

Dakota, and the District of Columbia were

not statistically different. 18 The estimates for Hawaii, Vermont, and

Wyoming, and several other states were not

statistically different.

Native Hawaiians moved

to Nevada.

Of note was the extremely

high state-level net migration

rate (563.1) of Native

Hawaiian and Other Pacific

Islanders to Nevada. This

means that Nevada gained

563 Native Hawaiians for

every 1,000 Native Hawaiians

living there in 1995. In addition, Nevada’s net migration

gain of 2,400 Native

Hawaiian and Other Pacific

Islanders was among the

highest of all states, with

only Washington being similar. In contrast, Hawaii and

California had the largest net

migration loss of Native

Hawaiian and other Pacific

Islanders (-7,000 and -4,000,

respectively). When examining state origins of Native

Hawaiian and other Pacific

Islander migrants to Nevada,

the largest flows came from

Hawaii (1,600) and California

(1,000).19 Hawaii’s economic

downturn in the 1990s, combined with Nevada’s rapid

economic growth, may help

explain this migration from

Hawaii to Nevada. 

19 The estimates for Hawaii and California

were not statistically different.
or loss for a particular state. 20

The following section describes

some of the largest inmigration

and outmigration flows, by race

and Hispanic origin, for states with

the largest net migration gains or

losses of those populations. 

Many non-Hispanic Whites

moved from New York to

Florida, and from California 

to nearby western states. 

As detailed earlier, the two states

with the largest net domestic

migration gain of non-Hispanic

Whites were Florida and Arizona.

The largest inmigration flows of

non-Hispanic Whites to Florida

came from New York (190,000),

while the largest inmigration flows

to Arizona of this group came from

California (109,000) and Illinois

(39,000). California and New York

had the largest net migration loss

of non-Hispanic Whites. The

largest outmigration flows of nonHispanic Whites from New York

went to Florida (190,000) and the

adjacent states of New Jersey

(115,000) and Pennsylvania

(73,000). The largest numbers of

non-Hispanic White outmigrants

from California moved to the western states of Arizona (109,000),

Nevada (105,000), Washington

(102,000), and Oregon (98,000).21

The destinations of

outmigration flows from

California were more

geographically dispersed for

Blacks than for non-Hispanic

Whites. 

As with non-Hispanic Whites, New

York and California had large net

migration losses of Blacks. New

York’s largest Black outmigration

flows were to Florida (40,000),

Georgia (28,000), New Jersey

(26,000), and North Carolina

(24,000).22 Outmigration patterns

of Blacks who left California were

more geographically dispersed

than those of non-Hispanic Whites,

as the largest numbers moved to

Texas (18,000), followed by

Georgia and Nevada (14,000 each).

States with large net migration

gains of Blacks were Georgia and

North Carolina. The largest number of Black inmigrants to Georgia

came from Florida (32,000) and

New York (28,000). Among Black

inmigrants to North Carolina, the

largest flows came from New York

U.S. Census Bureau 11

20 Tables with complete state-to-state

migration flows of the White, Black, Asian,

and Hispanic populations are available on

the Census Bureau’s Web site at 

www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000

/migration.html.

What were the origins of

Asians moving from

Louisiana to Texas?

About 3,000 Asians moved

from Louisiana to Texas.

Disaggregating this migration

flow by place of birth gives a

clearer picture of the types of

Asians who made this move.

Figure 2 shows that a large

percentage of Asian migrants

who moved from Louisiana to

Texas were born in Vietnam,

as well as in India, Louisiana

(perhaps the children of Asian

immigrants), and China.

These results illustrate the

diversity among the Asian

population and, in this case,

of Asian migrants moving

from Louisiana to Texas. 

Figure 2.

Place of Birth of Asian Louisiana-toTexas Migrants: 1995 to 2000 

1

 Excludes migrants born in Hong Kong, Taiwan, or Macau.

2

 Includes migrants born in South Korea and North Korea. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. 

(Only sources accounting for greater than one percent shown. Data 

based on a sample. For information on confidentiality protection, 

sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see 

www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)

Illinois

California

Taiwan

Phillippines

Texas

Korea2

Pakistan

China1

Louisiana

India

Vietnam

1.1

23.8

14.4

13.0

11.4

6.6

4.7

5.8

4.2

2.6

2.2

21 The estimates for Arizona and Nevada,

for Nevada and Washington, and for

Washington and Oregon were not statistically different. 22 The estimates for Georgia and New

Jersey, and for New Jersey and North

Carolina were not statistically different. 
12 U.S. Census Bureau Net Migration Rates for Non-Hispanic Whites: 1

0 100 Miles 0 100 Miles 0 100 Miles 

1 See text for definition of net migration rate. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. Figure 3. (Data based on a sample. For more information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions

see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)
(24,000), Virginia (15,000), and

South Carolina (14,000).23

Many Asian migrants 

to Nevada and Texas came 

from California. 

States with large net migration

gains of Asians were Nevada and

Texas. The bulk of Asian inmigrants to Nevada came from

California (13,000) and Hawaii

(3,000), while many of Texas’

Asian inmigrants came from

California (12,000), as well as

states like New York, Illinois, and

Louisiana (see text box 6). New

York and California had the largest

net migration loss of Asians. The

largest flows of Asians out of New

York went to New Jersey (25,000),

followed by California (14,000).

California’s three largest Asian outmigration streams were to Nevada

(13,000), Texas (12,000), and

Washington (12,000), two of which

(Nevada and Texas) were the same

as for Blacks.24

Hispanic state-to-state

migration patterns showed

many immigrant gateway

states to be top origins for

domestic migration. 

Florida and Nevada experienced

large net migration gains of

Hispanics between 1995 and 2000.

Large Hispanic inmigration flows to

Florida came from fellow gateway

states like New York (68,000), New

Jersey (27,000), and California

(22,000). Similarly, the vast majority of Hispanics who moved to

Nevada came from California

(61,000), while many also came

from Texas (5,000), and Arizona

(4,000).25 California and New York

had the largest net migration loss

of Hispanics. The largest Hispanic

outmigration flows from California

went to Texas (62,000), Nevada

(61,000), and Arizona (60,000).26

From New York, the largest outflows were to Florida (68,000),

New Jersey (38,000), and

Pennsylvania (17,000).

COUNTY-LEVEL MIGRATION 

This section looks at county-level

migration by race and Hispanic origin. Figures 3 through 5 depict

county-level net migration rates for

non-Hispanic Whites, Blacks, and

Hispanics, respectively, providing

greater geographic detail regarding

the results described earlier.27 At

this scale, events like military base

closings and the openings and

closings of retirement homes and

prisons can have substantial

effects on migration patterns

(especially net migration rates) for

counties with small populations of

particular groups. 

County-level migration

patterns of non-Hispanic

Whites displayed patterns of

continued suburbanization.

County-level migration patterns of

non-Hispanic Whites confirm

migration gains in the South and

the West and losses in the Midwest

and the Northeast. However, even

within states located in these

regions there were variations. For

example, counties in the central

and eastern parts of Texas gained

migrants, while the western portion of the state experienced net

losses. Also, the net migration

gain of non-Hispanic Whites in

north Texas counties surrounding

Dallas County fits classic suburbanization patterns. Another

example of suburbanization was in

the Chicago area, as inner counties

had net migration losses of nonHispanic Whites, while surrounding

counties had net migration gains

of this group. 

Among counties nationwide, the

largest gains of non-Hispanic

Whites were in Maricopa County,

AZ (147,000) and Clark County, NV

(102,000), in the Phoenix and Las

Vegas metropolitan areas, respectively. In juxtaposition, counties

with large urban centers like Cook

County, IL —Chicago (233,000),

Los Angeles County, CA —Los

Angeles (181,000), and Dallas

County, TX —Dallas (104,000) had

the largest losses of non-Hispanic

Whites. In terms of net migration

rates, among counties with a population of at least 5,000 nonHispanic Whites in 2000, counties

like Douglas County, CO (suburban

Denver) (488.8), Sumter County, FL

(456.4), and Forsyth County, GA

(suburban Atlanta) (451.2) had

high net inmigration rates, while

St. Louis City, MO (322.5) and

Chattahoochee County, GA (302.2)

had high net outmigration rates.28

Many southern counties

showed modest net migration

gain or losses of Blacks

In general, county-level migration

patterns of Blacks were similar to

those of non-Hispanic Whites, but

reflected greater variation in the

Midwest, primarily due to the low

number of Blacks living in some

counties in that region. Although

the South as a whole experienced

net inmigration of Blacks between

1995 and 2000 (particularly in the

interior of states along the eastern

seaboard), many parts of the region

had moderate rates of net outmigration of Blacks (see Figure 4).

Relatively few southern counties

had relatively high net outmigration

U.S. Census Bureau 13

23 The estimates for Virginia and South

Carolina were not statistically different. 24 The estimates for Nevada, Texas, and

Washington were not statistically different. 25 The estimates for Texas and Arizona

were not statistically different. 

26 The estimates for Texas, Nevada, and

Arizona were not statistically different. 27 County-level migration data for Asians

are not presented because of the high number of counties with very small Asian populations. 

28 The estimates for Douglas County,

Sumter County, and Forsyth County, and for

St Louis City and Chattahoochee County

were not statistically different. 
14 U.S. Census Bureau 

Net Migration Rates for Blacks: 1995 to 2000 

0 100 Miles 0 100 Miles 0 100 Miles N

(p

1 See text for definition of net migration rate. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. Figure 4. (Data based on a sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)
rates of Blacks, partly due to the

large proportion of Blacks already

living in the South. Many counties

that experienced high net outmigration rates of Blacks were concentrated in western parts of Texas,

and in parts of Appalachia and 

the Midwest. 

Nationally, in terms of individual

county net migration gain, St.

Louis County, MO, Baltimore

County, MD, and Clayton County,

GA (around 31,000 each) had large

net gains of Blacks. Counties with

the greatest volume of net migration loss were Kings County, NY

(78,000), Cook County, IL (70,000),

and Los Angeles County, CA

(47,000). These counties encompassed considerable parts of New

York City, Chicago, and Los

Angeles, respectively. 

Net inmigration of 

Hispanics extended across

extensive parts of the South

and Midwest.

Many counties in the South and

Midwest experienced moderate to

high rates of net inmigration of

Hispanics (see Figure 5). These

data exclude movers from outside

the United States, so the extensive

gains of Hispanics in the South and

Midwest represent population

exchanges with other parts of the

United States.

Areas with net outmigration of

Hispanics were areas where

Hispanic immigrants traditionally

settle. Many counties along the

U.S.-Mexico border experienced net

outmigration of Hispanics (excluding movement of people who lived

outside the United States in 1995).

Other parts of Texas and many

counties in New Mexico and along

the California coast also experienced net outmigration of

Hispanics to other parts of the

United States. Quite clearly, 

Figure 5 depicts a redistribution of

Hispanics from traditional areas of

residence in the southwest to a

wider variety of locations, especially in the South and Midwest. 

Counties with the largest net

migration gain of Hispanics were

similar to those which gained nonHispanic Whites, and included

Clark County, NV (56,000),

Maricopa County, AZ (47,000), and

Broward County, FL (41,000).29 As

before, these numbers exclude

movers from outside the United

States. Conversely, counties with

the greatest net migration loss of

Hispanics were Los Angeles

County, CA (290,000), Cook

County, IL (55,000), Kings County,

NY (55,000), and Miami-Dade

County, FL (51,000).30 These counties also experienced extensive net

outmigration of non-Hispanic

Whites and Blacks, and illustrate

the redistribution of people away

from some core areas in and

around some of the nation’s largest

cities.

SUMMARY

This report shows that U.S. migration patterns between 1995 and

2000 differed by race and Hispanic

origin. In terms of mobility,

Hispanics and Blacks were more

mobile than non-Hispanic Whites,

while non-Hispanic Whites were

most likely to have moved

between states. In terms of migration, regional, state, and county

migration patterns differed somewhat among non-Hispanic Whites,

Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians,

while movers from abroad helped

offset net migration losses in many

areas. The South had a net migration gain and the Northeast a net

migration loss of all four race or

Hispanic origin groups. However,

the Midwest experienced a net

migration gain only of Hispanics,

while having net migration losses

for the other three groups. Florida

had the largest net migration gain

of non-Hispanic Whites and

Hispanics, while Nevada had the

highest net migration rate for all

four groups. Conversely, New York

and California had the highest net

migration loss for all four race or

Hispanic origin groups. Finally,

state-to-state migration flows, as

well as county-level migration patterns, varied among the different

race or Hispanic-origin groups.

U.S. Census Bureau 15

29 The estimates for Maricopa County and

Broward County were not statistically different. 30 The estimates for Cook County, Kings

County, and Miami-Dade County were not

statistically different. 
16 U.S. Census Bureau (Data based on a sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf) Net Migration Rates for Hispanics: 1995 to 200

0 100 Miles 0 100 Miles 0 100 Miles 

1 See text for definition of net migration rate. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. Figure 5. 
ACCURACY OF 

THE ESTIMATES

The data contained in this report

are based on the sample of households who responded to the

Census 2000 long form.

Nationally, approximately 1 out of

every 6 housing units was included

in this sample. As a result, the

sample estimates may differ somewhat from the 100-percent figures

that would have been obtained if

all housing units, people within

those housing units, and people

living in group quarters had been

enumerated using the same questionnaires, instructions, enumerators, and so forth. The sample

estimates also differ from the values that would have been obtained

from different samples of housing

units, people within those housing

units, and people living in group

quarters. The deviation of a sample estimate from the average of

all possible samples is called the

sampling error. 

In addition to the variability that

arises from the sampling procedures, both sample data and 100-

percent data are subject to nonsampling error. Nonsampling error

may be introduced during any of

the various complex operations

used to collect and process data.

Such errors may include: not enumerating every household or every

person in the population, failing to

obtain all required information

from the respondents, obtaining

incorrect or inconsistent information, and recording information

incorrectly. In addition, errors can

occur during the field review of the

enumerators’ work, during clerical

handling of the census questionnaires, or during the electronic

processing of the questionnaires.

Nonsampling error may affect the

data in two ways: (1) errors that

are introduced randomly will

increase the variability of the data

and, therefore, should be reflected

in the standard errors; and (2)

errors that tend to be consistent in

one direction will bias both sample

and 100-percent data in that direction. For example, if respondents

consistently tend to underreport

their incomes, then the resulting

estimates of households or families by income category will tend

to be understated for the higher

income categories and overstated

for the lower income categories.

Such biases are not reflected in the

standard errors.

While it is impossible to completely

eliminate error from an operation

as large and complex as the decennial census, the Census Bureau

attempts to control the sources of

such error during the data collection and processing operations.

The primary sources of error and

the programs instituted to control

error in Census 2000 are described

in detail in Summary File 3

Technical Documentation under

Chapter 8, “Accuracy of the Data,”

located at www.census.gov/prod

/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf. 

All statements in this Census 2000

report have undergone statistical

testing and all comparisons are

significant at the 90-percent confidence level, unless otherwise

noted. The estimates in tables,

maps, and other figures may vary

from actual values due to sampling

and nonsampling errors. As a

result, estimates in one category

may not be significantly different

from estimates assigned to a different category. Further information on the accuracy of the data is

located at www.census.gov

/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf. For

further information on the computation and use of standard errors,

contact the Decennial Statistical

Studies Division at 301-763-4242. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION 

More detailed information on

decennial migration products,

including additional tables and

other product announcements, is

available on the Internet and can

be accessed via the Census

Bureau’s decennial migration Web

page at www.census.gov

/population/www/cen2000

/migration.html.

The decennial migration Web page

contains additional detailed migration tables not included in this

report, a schedule of upcoming

migration data releases, and

migration-related Census 2000

Special Reports.

For more information on decennial

migration products, please contact:

Population Distribution Branch

Population Division

U.S. Census Bureau

301-763-2419

or send e-mail to pop@census.gov.

Information on other population

and housing topics is presented in

the Census 2000 Brief and Special

Reports Series, located on the U.S.

Census Bureau’s Web site at

www.census/gov/population/www

/cen2000/briefs.html. These

series present information about

race, Hispanic origin, age, sex,

household type, housing tenure,

and other social, economic, and

housing characteristics.

Census 2000 information and data

can also be accessed via the

Census 2000 Gateway Web page at

www.census.gov/main/www

/cen2000.html.

For more information about

Census 2000, including data products, call our Customer Services

Center at 301-763-INFO (4636) or

e-mail webmaster@census.gov.

U.S. Census Bureau 17